 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Razmus v. Michigan State Police10/25/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Neff and Donofrio, JJ.
Plaintiff, Shirley J. Razmus, appeals as of right from a grant of summary disposition entered in favor of defendant, Michigan State Police (MSP). On appeal, plaintiff argues that the court erred in granting summary disposition in favor of defendant because she presented direct evidence establishing defendant's policy to consider race in determining promotions, a prima facie case of reverse discrimination, and also, a causal relationship between being denied interviews for further promotions and her pending litigation resulting in a valid claim for retaliation. Because contrary to plaintiff's claims, she did not present sufficient evidence establishing material questions of fact concerning any of her issues on appeal, we affirm.
Plaintiff, a Caucasian female, began her career as a trooper for defendant in 1977. Defendant promoted plaintiff to sergeant in 1985, to lieutenant in 1988, and to first lieutenant in 1989. During her employment, plaintiff earned a bachelor's degree in 1993, and a master's degree in 2001. From the time when plaintiff was promoted to first lieutenant in 1989, she applied for about ten promotions to inspector and received none. Defendant awarded seventy percent of promotions plaintiff applied for to Caucasians. Plaintiff claims she was denied three of the ten inspector positions because defendant illegally considered race in promotion decisions. The three inspector positions specifically at issue in this case are Daniel Payne's promotion to inspector in defendant's third district in February 2000, Morris Browns's promotion to inspector in defendant's second district in April 2000, and Cheryl Strayhorn's promotion to inspector in defendant's human resources division in May 2000
Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary disposition because she presented direct evidence of race discrimination and established a prima facie case of unlawful reverse discrimination. This Court reviews de novo a trial court's grant or denial of summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). Spiek v Dep't of Transp, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). A motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim. Downey v Charlevoix Co Bd of Co Rd Comm'rs, 227 Mich App 621, 625; 576 NW2d 712 (1998). The pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and any other documentary evidence submitted by the parties must be considered by the court when ruling on a motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10). MCR 2.116(G)(5); Id. at 626. When reviewing a decision on a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), this Court "must consider the documentary evidence presented to the trial court 'in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.'" DeBrow v Century 21 Great Lakes, Inc (After Remand), 463 Mich 534, 538-539; 620 NW2d 836 (2001), quoting Harts v Farmers Ins Exchange, 461 Mich 1, 5; 597 NW2d 47 (1999). A trial court has properly granted a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) "if the affidavits or other documentary evidence show that there is no genuine issue in respect to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358, 362; 547 NW2d 314 (1996).
The Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq. prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of prohibited considerations including race. MCL 37.2202(1). For a successful employment discrimination claim a plaintiff must produce some evidence of bias. Hazle v Ford Motor Co, 464 Mich 456, 462-463; 628 NW2d 515 (2001). If the plaintiff presents direct evidence of bias, then he wil
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|